Social Responsibility

Been a while. As usual. I was fired up a month and a half ago but sometimes life has a way of knocking the wind out of you and make you not feel like blogging. Or... you feel a lot like blogging, but you don't want anyone to actually end up reading what you're likely to write.

Anyway, there's lots to talk about. I've seen several issues come and go since I was on here last, but what's making the news right now is our nation's debt. We had weeks of debate throughout July, and just last Friday, August 5th, our nation's credit rating was downgraded.

You've heard the arguments if you've been paying attention. But I want to react to things slightly differently:

I saw a few people on my Facebook post about how sad or unfair it is that unemployment benefits are being slashed. I've also visited several websites where, in the comment section, the Left accused the Right of wanting to stop taking care of the sick and the elderly, and to "kick grandma out into the street." I also was a part of a surprisingly pleasant discussion, where one of the participants suggested that social programs were what made America great. That without taking care of the poor and less fortunate, we would not be as classy or as first rate of a nation.

Also, this quote from Stephen Colbert has been making the rounds a lot lately:

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus is just as selfish as we are or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition. And then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”

I adore Stephen Colbert, and I watch his show regularly. I think he is brilliant and I am fascinated by his wit and his intelligence and his obviously well-rounded education. I've seen him start talking fluent German in the middle of a "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" improv scene, and he has made references on the fly during interviews on his "Colbert Report" show that I have had to Google on my smart phone. My point is that I respect him immensely and though he is a comedian, I take him very seriously. And I am fairly sure he is Catholic and that his words are sincere.

So, first of all, I want to respond to that quote. We've all heard the phrase, "You can give a man a fish, and feed him for a day; or teach a man to fish, and feed him for a lifetime." I ask, then, would a Christian better serve a poor man by propping him up with social crutches that keep him perpetually poor? Or would it be better to encourage that man to enable himself? Would a man rather be given milk, or would he be prouder to work for his own wages and buy that milk for himself? Now, I know this is very simplistic and there are arguments about uneven playing fields and all of that (which I can get to*), but this is one example I offer of why it is not necessarily fair to accuse Christians who oppose certain social programs of being un-Christian.

Further, why must charity be government mandated and controlled? Can we not be trusted to be charitable? Must the government step in and make sure Christians act like Christians? If I want to help the less fortunate, why can I not give to a private charity of my choosing? Why does it have to be the government? What about churches? It's fun to bash them, but there are a lot of hospitals and schools out there named after Saints. There are ways to be charitable without the government ever getting its hands on the money. And I firmly believe the government is often a lousy and inefficient alternative. When Jesus was teaching, he stopped and personally helped the sick and the needy. I don't remember scripture passages where he collected money from everyone and set up a social program.

And that brings me to this idea of kicking grandma out on the street. It strikes me that these social programs, and especially the ones for our elderly, are extremely impersonal. We write a check to the government so that we can essentially group of all of our older citizens up in hidden little communities, away where we won't have to see them or deal with them. Many spend the last years of their life surrounded by nurses and strangers. The same goes for our poor. Everyone is someone's relative or neighbor. Whatever happened to looking out for each other? Would we rather write a check and look away rather than invite a down-on-his luck neighbor into our homes?

There was a time before social programs. And yes, it was imperfect, and yes, there were unfortunate souls in need of help. But it was also a time when multiple generations lived under the same roof. It was a time when you knew everyone who lived in your small community, and you could stop by with some extra food, or you could invite them over to do a few odd jobs for some extra cash accompanied by the dignity of performing a task.

Our country has some serious choices up ahead. And it may be that we can no longer afford some of these social programs in their current state. We may have to have grandma live with us. We may have to let a laid-off uncle stay in the spare room for a while. We may have to babysit the neighbor's kids while he can only find 3rd shift work. Sure, there will still be those with no friends or relatives to turn to, but imagine the huge burden we would take off of government programs if we just swallowed our pride and asked our community for help, or if we allowed ourselves not just write a check but to help others, even when it's not "convenient."

We are pooling our money, and going into debt, to collectively ignore our social problems and keep them out of site and out of mind. Rather than collect taxes, and confiscate other people's money so we can throw our poor, sick, and elderly into a "program" and forget about them, we may have to become a community that truly and personally cares for our less fortunate. We might even get a chance to better know our friends, family, and neighbors. And would that be such a bad thing?




*This got long... I'll save the "even playing field" for another time.